The Three Rs N3twork is a primarily British viral entertainment network, with standings in many niche interests involved in a variety of different groups. Ranging from gaming to adulthood to video creation.
1/10 - "Just, No." 2/10 - "Avoid." 3/10 - "Gamebreakingly flawed" 4/10 - "Not so great" 5/10 - "Pretty Average." 6/10 - "A few nice touches, nothing amazing" 7/10 - "Not brilliant, fun anyway" 8/10 - "A decent enough game, Well worth a look." 9/10 - "A really good game. Highly Recommended." 10/10 - "An absolute must buy, a defining game for the genre."
Well i know i'm late in posting once again, but i only reactivated my WoW account yesterday evening then went on a huge PVP honor grind (S2 here i come), anywho i'm not really sure about these new Talents, obviously not being a melee DPS player i'm not going to look at any form of brick shithouse, of knifey in the back arsehole, but i did give the Spellcasters a good look (by that i mean balance Drood, Priest, Mage, Shammy) and ofc the Death knight, but i would like to ask Blizzard what is the point in posting Talents for a brand new class when we have no idea what the abilities do *claps* well done blizzard once again you have shown you are as competant as a 4 year old doing brain surgery.
http://wow-europe.com/en/info/basics/talents/wrath/deathknight/talents.html <----- thats the link for those of you that want it.
But as i really can't be arsed to do a huge in depth article i'm going to say that i have looked at them all, though i know nothing is final i have a few things to say.
1) Doing anything that specialises a character in a game is no easy task, neither is introducing new content, because you are never going to please everybody ( i did say this in my "Death Knight first look," but i think that blizzard do a good job in making balanced talents, so before you all go post on the WoW forums that they didn't give you a near instant kill talent think about that.
2) They should have taken my idea for a summonable phonix on the end of the Fire mage tree.
Yeah like i said i really can't be bothered right now because no matter what i write you guys arn't going to like it.
Tomorrow hopefully should be doing Age of Conan (yes i know i'm late on that one aswell).
A few weeks back I posted a video about FarCry II from a recent European press conference, pointing out the horrible, headache-inducing flaws in his presentation. At this year's E3, Will Wright has done the superb thing and demonstrated how to present games: With jokes, with connection with the audience, by simply knowing what he's talking about:
Almost every game has them; from Sonic to Super Smash Brothers, Jet Force Gemini to Earthworm Jim. Ever since the dawn of gaming, it appears that these overpowered enemies have become a necessity in any sort of linear game. Of course, the inclusion of this essential element is usually dependent on the genre and the game in question. Still, usually, it is one of the unwritten codes of gaming that a title features one of these novelties. Some games have gained fame by placing such attributes on a glowing pedestal; Shadow of the Colossus springs directly to mind, as the designers openly admit they had a sole intention not to have any ‘normal’ enemies. Whereas others have been the source of critique for not incorporating these showdowns at all; even Portal has faced ridicule for those ignorant enough to see the mediocre nature of the game’s foes as not challenging enough, calling for a boss-like enemy to improve the variety of gameplay*. My stance is indifferent and even irrelevant to today’s article, although I dobelieve that – if done correctly – boss battles can add a huge, beneficial edge to the experience. The specifics of such, namely those in the climax of stories, can be found within the award-winning “Hahaha! Now I Shall Reveal My True Form!”. Anyway, enough self-plugging, time to get to the meat of today’s journey of gaming discovery.
First-person shooters notoriously have a key enemy every level or so which can easily be beaten by pouring in every ounce of your inventory into defeating them. Even so-called ‘revolutionary’ FPSes such as Half Life 2 or Bioshock have followed this awfully generic standard. From battles against Antlion Guards to maddened art museum curators, these two games – like many of their peers – feel there is a requirement to periodically test the skills of the player in a way which doesn’t involve throwing more of the same old boring mobs your way. Defeating these bosses can signal a way for story advancement, or just give the game an excuse to introduce a new item or weapon to aid you following the fight, or even during it. After all, there have been countless times where I’ve had to rip off a giant alien’s arm in order to use it against him. Unreal 2 and PREY use the demise of extraterrestrial beings that happen to be wielding the most original (and usually powerful) guns to give more muscle to the player character. Such methods have even been carried over to almost all massively multiplayer games; slaying the blatant bosses in each dungeon rewards the player with better items, slowly enforcing a cycle of positive reinforcement which is essential if the company wishes to keep players subscribed during the huge drain which is end-game content. This makes such games differ greatly from the original, single-player purpose of boss fights, as only a small minority of those who conquer said superiors play to extend their knowledge of the story, or lore. Instead, people choose to tussle with such beasts in order to improve their long-term standing. Whether this means acquiring new gear for further encounters, or player-vs.-player combat, or simply to level up; bosses are even an essential part of online gaming, even if they are optional.
Such themes have been commented on a million times before, from lovers and critics alike. I can easily imagine many people already writing out several responses to this article, stating how not all bosses have to fit the criteria above and how ignorant I am by thinking that all bosses have to have a purpose in the game. After all, some can be thrown in for fun, right?
I absolutely agree. This is the part of boss fights which no writer ever touches upon: The inclusion of these small game segments to simply add variety to gameplay; as I touched upon in the opening paragraph. In fact, it could be argued that such moments have had more effort put into creating them; as the developers do not feel as pressured to have them in order to push the player’s advancement directly forward and thus enjoy the free creative reign. When the only strain that the developer has to cope with is the need to sling in a few boss fights, the outcome can be unintentionally awesome.
Think about your favourite boss fight. If the first game you ever played through properly was Halo, then this exercise may be a little too stressing for you. Still, does your fondest memory include throwing everything you have at the final enemy (a la the previously-covered Bioshock) or perhaps an incredibly easy puzzle, despite it being against the title’s supposedly omniscient antagonist (again; Half Life 2, Portal)? No? Surely these games have defined a generation and as such their final foes should be the embodiment of power, sophistication and grace, right? Unless of course the obvious weaknesses in such enemies is intentional and is only there to highlight the irony and stupidity in these characters; that they really weren’t as dominant as the last ten hours of game time has made out, which only aids their development.
Or, y’know, the game designers could have just been lazy.
I admit that, when planning this article, I thought about doing a detailed analysis of how great of an impact the surroundings have on players memorising a boss battle. If this was the case, then Half Life 2 would have taken the biscuit. Recall, after all, the finale takes place high above City 17**, in front of a super-reactor at the top of a thousand-foot Citadel. Really, how much more awesome does an area get? Or maybe a huge chamber in the midst of another huge castle is more of your cup of tea, as shown by the Legend of Zelda games? Again, great effort comes from map designers into making such settings as important as possible.
Then, after all that, you get to experience the sacred end sequence! The G-Man apparently condemning you to live in stasis until you’re called upon again (although this is rectified in Episode One)! What a conclusion! This applies to other games, too! The half-hour FMVs at the end of the Final Fantasy series! The subtly relaxing and yet enlightening round-up at the culmination of every Legend of Zelda game! Surely completing each end boss battle for such benefits alone must be worth it, right?
So why is it, despite all of these above factors, people opt for the likes of Omega Weapon or Shadow Link in their respective games as their favourite boss battles, instead of the finishing antagonists? Surely we all should prefer the almost infinite gain from actually defeating the story’s main adversary to a simple door opening, or receiving weapons we don’t need? Why then are often lesser and optional boss fights chosen as the preference of many gamers?
Again, I personally feel that a number of different characteristics signal that certain sub-bosses can be more favoured than a game’s final battle and it varies from example to example. For instance, the likes of Shadow Link – the Ocarina of Time version especially – happens to be a huge hit. I don’t believe this is due to the difficulty of the fight (although that could contribute) but rather the placement of the sub-boss. Think about it: You’ve had to face the most Hellish series of puzzles since trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube that your little brother has been playing with for the past three weeks and then suddenly you’re cast out into an enormous room. Unlike the rest of the dungeon, this new place only has water as high as your ankles. Gingerly, you approach what appears to be the exit, notably next to a sole tree upon a tiny island. Then, appearing out of absolutely no-where, you find yourself facing er… well, yourself. Anyone who claims the battle itself is hard is somewhat retarded, as you could simply get out your hammer and pound the Shadow to death. Still, the surroundings and the quick change thereof, play a huge part in making this battle notable in the minds of millions. This quick change of pace (and environment) is often used in modern games to keep the player interested and remains a legacy of such situations as employed by the Dark Link encounter. Environmental gameplay also plays a factor in huge hits as Shadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater – where you often find yourself engaging a boss whilst making use of what aid the settings presents, or even the quick change of art to make the scenery appear that bit more surreal and memorable such as the Andross battle in LylatWars or many in Psychonauts.
Others claim that because of the challenge certain optional bosses pose, that they make the mightiest of battles. These players are the sorts who play Iron Mode on Audiosurf so they get that they still have bragging rights when they’re dethroned by a hundred thousand point difference on ‘Macho Man’. The most popular of such examples are obviously in Final Fantasy. Instead of using their profound abilities to, oh, defeat the game’s final boss easily and finish off, these players choose to venture into the most dank and unappealing of places to throw themselves up against a foe. Why? Well, loot cannot be a valid option, as the items these infamous enemies offer up can often be inferior to the gear you need to take them down to begin with and is therefore totally useless for the rest of the game. The pure exhilaration from attempting to tackle such random, non-compulsory and downright insanely hard task appears to be enough for some individuals to class the encounter as the best they’ve ever experienced. I don’t deny that, either. No matter what the game or genre, we’ve all faced assignments that we only accomplish through a mixture of top form and luck. In the minds of many, the opportunity to face such bosses makes people favour the games in which they are.
In summary, perhaps developers should take more notice of the masses preferring sub-bosses and surreal encounters to the big-hitters’ finale. Novelty is key and rather than hyping up the game’s climax, only to have it follow the same old ‘Hulk smash’ standard that has been the industry’s boon since Doom, games should have some sort of memorable quality about their encounters; whether the boss be in a new environment, have a unique way of fighting (or to be killed) or simply just be outrageously hard (thanks, Ninja Gaiden!). As long as the designers enjoy creating the boss for a reason other than to give players equipment or story advancement, then the players will enjoy playing it.
*Oh come on, you can’t call throwing in a few balls of AI into a fire whilst trying not to laugh a boss battle! It wasn’t as if it didn’t make it any more epic, just that it wasn’t really that difficult.
**Although the sky box for that map is actually New York at night.
Resident Evil 5's producer has confirmed that black people are participating in the game's development.
Jun Takeuchi talked to MTV's Stephen Totilo about the controversial racist undertones in Resident Evil 5. The adventure's action occurs in Africa, where many of the enemies are hostile villagers of black descent attacking a Caucasian protagonist.
Totilo's co-writer N'Gai Croal wrote on MTV's Multiplayer gaming blog that, after seeing RE5 for the first time, didn't "feel like anybody black worked on this game." Takeuchi was asked if the team had expected a reaction or had foreseen the racial issues.
He responded:
No, we certainly didn't anticipate the reaction. We were quite surprised by the reaction that came out. I think everyone understands that we never set out to with the intention to make anything that was racist - that was never our intention. We think it was a bit of a misunderstanding when we published the first images of the game back in the day. And we think that as we move along and allow people to see more of the game and more of what's going on and more of the story, people will get a better idea of the game. I think you can see that that reaction has started to die down a little bit. To answer the question that was posted on your blog, there are black members in the development team. We do have staff working on the game, who are aware of the historical background and we are constantly checking these kinds of things with them.
The lesson learned by Capcom was the cultural differences between countries and their views on race.
"Certainly the most important thing we have learned is that different countries do see the same things in different ways," explained Takeuchi. "I think it's very important as we go along and start other projects to learn from other countries and learn from other companies who are working in the video game and entertainment sectors, learn from their experiences, and not have the same problems again. You know, we have had the reverse problem with some games in Japan as well. But we're in the business of making entertainment. We're not out to make anything to deliberately shock anyone, so I think we can take a couple of lessons away from this experience."
Apolagies for my recent near abscence from the blog, i've been working double shfits without reprieve, and should be back to speed some time in the next week. In the meantime, i'd like to thank my writers for covering my ass.
EA CEO John Riccitiello confirmed today, [well, late last night] that well known studio bioware is creating an MMOG. This is newsworthy alone, but here we go: Bioware are creating an MMOG based in the Star Wars: KOTOR universe.
Thats pretty much all thats on the table so far, but i'm depressed that this pretty much signals "No KOTOR3".
Very few games nowadays do horror effectively. There are many typical routes that writers take to induce a scary experience. To name a few of the better examples, try looking at the two major roads that games tend to travel down in order to attempt to get your adrenaline pumping: The Project Zero trail and the Quake 4 method which ends up being more of a highway to repulsion. The former I've named after the PS2 classic which was called 'Fatal Frame' in the non-PAL territories, it boasted immense shocks through clever ways of placing enemies, along with a chilling score and difficult (but innovative!) action to match. The fright spawns from Silent Hill-esque moments of apparent safety, followed only by a terrifying appearence of an obake from behind Door Number Fook-Me-Shoulda-Seen-That-Coming. My main reasoning behind why I haven't named this technique after the aforementioned game, is due to the fact that Silent Hill tends to use gore a lot, which mixes it with the next modus operandi.
I've named this tactic after Quake 4. No doubt even the most ignorant of viewers will be able to recognise the clear elements it features. The writers of Quake 4, now classed as real pioneers when it comes to being truly bloody, really pushed the proverbial boat out when it came to their legacy in horror. Personally, I don't generally find grotesque semi-aliens attempting to fire at me by using some damn awkward AI to be at all scary. What I do find terrifying, is the most infamous scene in all of Quake history; the one where you turn into a Strogg. It certainly isn't a nice little case of waking up as one of these inhuman, part-mechanical monstrosities. Oh no, the game actually forces you, unable to act, watch the entire process of being 'Stroggified' as part of an efficient production line. To summarise this extremely scripted scene; there's a lot of blood and a lot of screaming. I'm sure if you're the sadist type you can dig a copy of the sequence up on YouTube. My rather long-winded point, is that a lot of games will try to scare their audience through pure, gruesomely sickly moments like the one in Quake. This is a major pitfall that the majority of FPSes fall pray to. Its easy to spray some blood around and hope the player reacts. So what they are so used to that sort of cop-out that they don't care at all!? Just throw in a frame or two of the player character's legs been sawn off and you have a thrill ride of a title, right? Still, many people find this sort of stuff seriously terrifying (just ask my mother when she watches Pulp Fiction!), so it gets the blood (if it hasn't been squirted everywhere first) pumping, definitely go for it, writers!
Most horror games either decide between either one or the other of the techniques above. Some incorporate a mixture of two. Some, on the other hand, simply are scary unintentionally. Let me give you the reason why you started reading this to begin with:
"Wouldn't it be a good enough idea if people stopped making the association that fear = Monster/supernatural being? How about natural fears? Phobias? I often feel scared with games that don't even have that intention. Take for instance FF7. Back in the days I was scared [shitless] when Emerald was inside the ocean and I had to go explore around in the submarine, something so tiny compared to a gigantic beast that could slowly materialize as he was heading towards you. OK, so it goes back to the monster point, but I'm afraid of large depths. Even when Emerald was gone, I felt uneasy during that part."
Divi's example of Final Fantasy 7 is reasonable; the whole psychological torture of being small in a very large place, underwater. When designing the game, the writers probably didn't think of the sort of reaction their audience would take to the situation. They probably just imagined we would treat that segment of the experience like we did every other of our 20-plus hours of playing. Instead, because of the juxtaposition of the tiny submarine and the mere possibility that, out of the terribly-drawn blue, a gigantic monster could come and swallow you up. Surely that's simply a survival instinct; that if we encounter something enormously bigger than us and we can't fight it, then we naturally get scared: Especially if we're forced into that sort of situation in a videogame, right? Well how come no one experiences that sort of fear when playing Devil May Cry; where we get to go against impossibly huge bosses - at least ten times the size of the main character? Perhaps because that is a more rational situation, and, after all, we've encountered such an enemy a thousand times before in games: A nice, safe, land-based, giant... thing. The greatest feeling we feel against these typical bosses is awe, not fright. But make that experience aquatic and the whole scenario changes.
Another example of the whole 'horror from the depths' thing which may be somewhat unorthodox would be Super Mario 64. Anyone remember the eel, or even Nessy in that underwater cavern? Both reasonably dangerous predators (alright, not so much the latter) who swim around in their respective moist areas, awaiting our beloved Mario, ready to strike. So, both of these creatures are hardly scary in retrospective due to the poor graphical quality which makes up their texture and the crap AI they both contained, but what about more recent examples of this subtle scare? How about the massive sea-snake in Shadow of the Colossus? Fighting that thing in a poorly-lit, huge lake was not a pleasant experience. Why is it, then, do players or humans overall dislike these huge, underwater sections more than a lot of horror games overall? A lot of these so-called monsters can have a greater chance of inducing paranoia, sweat and shock than a lot of the traditional scary moments. Certainly, this does not apply across the board, but enough of these 'rare' cases have been found for it to be certainly taken into consideration for any horror videogame writers. Marine monsters - or simply the mere possibility they are going to be present - are a force to be reckoned with in any player audience. After all, there's a reason why the world is fascinated with sea monsters in real life, and not just because of hopeful biological breakthroughs.
As Divi also suggests, our shared experience of irrigated environments and having appropriate creatures to occupy them, is only a single example of the possibilities when it comes to psychologically terrorising the player. I'm not just talking about picking on the more common phobias. I mean, we've all seen the 'OMFG LUK A GIANT SPIDER!' scene a thousand times before. From the Legend of Zelda to Battle for Middle Earth; arachnids really have a strong presence on the gaming scene. What about other fears, though? How about - as mentioned - claustrophobia? Small spaces is a very common issue for people worldwide, so why do they get so little attention in games? The infamous Flash 'Crab Battle' based off Snake Eater has gained tremendous popularity. Now, we can't prove that this directly correlates with peoples' fears of small spaces, but certainly crawling through the tunnels, being hit by the occasional crab or whatever ended up being quite a memorable scene. Strange, especially considering the other great moments the title offers up. Certainly, creating new and interesting moments which tap directly into the human psyche, either through extremism or unspoken fears, is a sure fine way to get your game remembered.
I’m tired of game writers, who not only have the cheek to put the player down a linear adventure full of irrelevant side-quests and escort missions full of adrenaline-junkie allies, but then, at the final hurdle, throw in an incomprehensibly powerful boss to throw all thoughts of realism out of the window with absolutely no thought to inventiveness or coherent narrative. Basically, I loathe writers who simply cannot write well. Allow me to elaborate:
I dislike it when, to put it simply, videogames with even a hint of even the most mediocre of stories across any genre, try to surprise the audience with a few cheap tricks. More specifically, when developers throw in the age-old mechanic of overcharging the last enemy (the vast majority of the time it is the main antagonist) as an excuse to test out the player’s ability.
Right, let's look at Mass Effect and Bioshock to begin with; these both use the predictable twists (Hah!) of a good guy turning bad (although it is earlier on in the game in Mass Effect) and then an 'epic' final battle with a boss who happens to suddenly be overpowered. Appropriately you can pound both last, suddenly superhuman bosses simply by pile-driving them to death with all your available weapons, but that is irrelevant. This plot device in games has been going on since the first Legend of Zeldas (where earlier bosses would return in harder forms later on, as the game ended) and even was applied to a lot of the common Nintendo 64 collection; ranging from Lylat Wars (“Braaaaaaains!”) to Super Mario (“More bombs, kthnx!”). It is somewhat sad that, almost a decade on, developers are still using the same mechanics to induce a 'shock' from the audience at the game's closing minutes; even though we all realise that there's always an blockbuster battle to conclude with (and, in all honesty, we would be disappointed if there wasn't). I picked Mass Effect and Bioshock out because these final encounters are explained with lore which seems like it was designed to be an excuse to bring back the character for the battle (EVE and the Reaper specifically). I am torn between liking the fact that the writers have incorporated the entire plot into the final incarnation of the antagonist, and hating the fact they were reduced to making use of such a lowly twist just to test the player’s skills built up over the course of the game. For comparison, look at my other two examples:
In Metal Gear Solid 2, the antagonist is established about half way through the game to be Solidius Snake, ‘brother’ of Solid Snake. The plot which has featured in over three games tells us how powerful Solidius is, so when we have to face him in the end without a huge, pointless morphing scene, it doesn't surprise us. In fact, the game's writers do a wonderful job of not only using Soldius's obvious power to further the plot ("Look! There's a Harrier II!") but also to build up a great amount of anticipation with the player until the moment comes where you actually do battle him. The game is a wonderful demonstration of how writers can include some really magnificent surprises (ranging from the death of E.E to the discovery of the S3) without the entire experience resting on an average (if not slightly more quick-witted than usual) character becoming extraordinarily powerful simply for the sake that the player is going to kill them six minutes later quite easily anyway (I personally found Solidius a lot harder boss than, say, Saren from Mass Effect).
My final game of choice is Final Fantasy X. FFX gets a lot of stick because of the 'weakness' of the main character; but as a journey and in relation to the issue at hand: It is beautiful. Much like Mass Effect and Bioshock, the game takes place in a fantasy universe and the final boss is based around a supernatural occurrence within the world's lore. However, similar to Metal Gear Solid 2, it is established fairly early on that the end battle will be tough as old boots. It doesn't have to suddenly surprise the player with a (somewhat anticlimactic) encounter at the finale; because it is already rest assured that the final boss will be larger-than-life. And it is. This satisfies the player, who has been baying for a piece of this gigantic beast for the entire time of playing. Along the way, big events happen due to the presence of this terrific monster (Operation Mi'Hen!) which furthers the plot still and through a line of negative conditioning, makes the player want to kill the end enemy. On top of all this, the game still includes some of the best, tear-jerking twists I've ever witnessed (Yuna's 'sacrifice', the nature of Tidus and Auron, Seymour's obsession) through any media.
Putting in a (ironically very predictable) event such as ‘zerging’ the antagonist, even in the natural context of the game's backstory, just to have him or her be killed by the player moment's later regardless, is needless and, more often than not, ruins the immersion of the game. Certainly, I am the last to criticise an experience because of a few twists here and there within the journeys which make up all of these games, but please, when it comes to the closing moments; don’t try to fool the player by the addition of a sudden transformation. Anyone who had picked up even a reasonably long videogame within the past two years or so will know what to expect, so why patronise us with cheap tricks that even a pantomime would be ashamed of?
In addition to RB2 being able to play all of the Original Rock Band songs/DLC, this is the playlist for the newest installment of the series.
AC/DC: "Let There Be Rock" AFI: "Girl's Gone Grey" Alanis Morissette: "You Oughta Know" Alice in Chains: "Man in the Box" Allman Brothers: "Ramblin' Man" Avenged Sevenfold: "Almost Easy" Bad Company: "Shooting Star" Beastie Boys: "So Whatcha Want" Beck: "E-Pro" Bikini Kill: "Rebel Girl" Billy Idol: "White Wedding Pt. I" Blondie: "One Way or Another" Bob Dylan: "Tangled Up in Blue" Bon Jovi: "Livin' on a Prayer" Cheap Trick: "Hello There" Devo: "Uncontrollable Urge" Dinosaur Jr.: "Feel the Pain" Disturbed: "Down with the Sickness" Dream Theater: "Panic Attack" Duran Duran: "Hungry Like the Wolf" Elvis Costello: "Pump It Up" Fleetwood Mac: "Go Your Own Way" Foo Fighters: "Everlong" Guns N' Roses: "Shackler's Revenge" Interpol: "PDA" Jane's Addiction: "Mountain Song" Jethro Tull: "Aqualung" Jimmy Eat World: "The Middle" Joan Jett: "Bad Reputation" Journey: "Anyway You Want It" Judas Priest: "Painkiller" Kansas: "Carry On Wayward Son" L7: "Pretend We're Dead" Lacuna Coil: "Our Truth" Linkin Park: "One Step Closer" Lit: "My Own Worst Enemy" Lush: "De-Luxe" Mastodon: "Colony of Birchmen" Megadeth: "Peace Sells" Metallica: "Battery" Mighty Mighty Bosstones: "Where'd You Go" Modest Mouse: "Float On" Motorhead: "Ace of Spades" Nirvana: "Drain You" Norman Greenbaum: "Spirit in the Sky" Panic at the Disco: "Nine in the Afternoon" Paramore: "That's What You Get" Pearl Jam: "Alive" Presidents of the USA: "Lump" Rage Against the Machine:"Testify" Ratt: "Round & Round" Red Hot Chili Peppers : "Give It Away" Rise Against: "Give It All" Rush: "The Trees" Silversun Pickups: "Lazy Eye" Smashing Pumpkins: "Today" Social Distortion: "I Was Wrong" Sonic Youth: "Teen Age Riot" Soundgarden: "Spoonman" Squeeze: "Cool for Cats" Steely Dan: "Bodhitsattva" Steve Miller Band: "Rock'n Me" Survivor: "Eye of the Tiger" System of a Down: "Chop Suey" Talking Heads: "Psycho Killer" Tenacious D: "Master Exploder" Testament: "Souls of Black" The Donnas: "New Kid in School" The Go-Go's: "We Got the Beat" The Grateful Dead: "Alabama Getaway" The Guess Who: "American Woman" The Muffs: "Kids in America" The Offspring: "Come Out & Play (Keep 'em Separated)" The Replacements: "Alex Chilton" The Who: "Pinball Wizard"
Rock Band 2 bonus disc tracklist:
Abnormality: "Visions" Anarchy Club: "Get Clean" Bang Camaro: "Night Lies" Breaking Wheel: "Shoulder to the Plow" The Libyans: "Neighborhood" The Main Drag: "A Jagged Gorgeous Winter" Speck: "Conventional Lover" The Sterns: "Supreme Girl" That Handsome Devil: "Rob the Prez-O-Dent"
And, as a little extra bonus, This will be some added bonuses for big fans of the game. Including this little baby:
That is not only the Rock Band 2 Special Edition Drumset, that also doubles as an actual Electronic Drumset. The Special Edition Guitar is a hollowed out Fender Strat. And now, for some info that was pulled from a Gameinformer Article.
-Ability to "tune" your instruments -Redesigned quickplay mode -Brand new track choice screen -Ability to create setlists -Ability to auto-create setlists -No-Fail mode -Solo modes for every instrument -World Tour Online -Battle of the Bands mode --Band vs Band --Start out going against bands like yourself --During each challenge, theres a meter that shows how close you are to passing the next band --1 mode is: bands compete for the highest multiplier for the longest time --Countdown to the deadline next to the instructions -Drum Trainer -More user-friendly lag calibrator -Jukebox mode --Listen to music, but don't have to play -Old hardware still works -New drum pads are velocity sensitive -Less "squishy" strummer -Ion drum kit -Able to purchase custom real-world merch for characters -In-game photo creator lets you set facial expressions and poses for your characters, add visual effects and then upload to RockBand.com -You can order t-shirts and posters, bumper stickers and all sorts of stuff with your band logo. -Guitar buttons don't click so loudly
This grates alittle with me, As Rock Band 1 has only just been released in the UK. Either way, A Drumkit that doubles up as a real electronic drumkit? Awesome.
Still trawling through the mountain of E3 information, I PROMISE there will be at least a digest by the end of the week, There's just so much I want to say.
Don't get your hopes up, they have not announced it and chances are they never will, but i was browsing youtube today and i saw so many people making muck up trailers for the 3rd game, they are dated to even a week ago.
Now as far as i understand it Bullfrog who also created games like Theme Hospital, Theme Park, Populus and ofc Dungeon Keeper, were bought out by EA games, renamed Lionhead Studios and were pulled off the Dungeon Keeper 3 project to make Black and White, how much of the black and white bit is true i don't know, either way there is still enough of a fanbase existing to create the 3rd game and make a good revenue on it, i mean come on Blizzard waited 10 years to announce Starcraft 2 and they have had alot of positive feedback from it.
I know that i can't make them do anything about it, but i do think it's not fair that they put the trailer for the 3rd game onto the DK2 disc then axed the game. But i leave you with another person who made a video about this problem
In addition to all the tasty, tasty, E3 goodness [Which i'll probably post up some of tommorow, Theres just so much to wade through] the Too Human demo dropped today. Word is, its a sci fi dungeon crawler, think.. Diablo in space, with norse gods.
Impressive eh? Well, the demo weighed in at a hefty 1.1 gig, The demo was typically "fantasy" and there was 5 classes on display, but only one to choose from, the champion. The opening intro looked very nice, with the norse gods seeming like the colonial marines from aliens,weirdly enough.
The game play? well, the controls were very nice and it looks awesome to roll in a dodge, pull dual handguns, and start shooting, and I hadn't even left the initial area yet, Let alone seen any monsters. Controlling your sword is done via the right analogue stick which is a concept i've loved since playing Blade 2 back on the PS2. When I finally reached enemys, I realised something. This game is fucking awesome, Like Diablo on steroids. When you level up there are 3 skill tree's to choose from. The setting is certainly unique, but it plays like the popular "Action RPG's" of the last generation of consoles.
Basically, what i'm trying to say is, I was blown away by this game, and i'm buying it. Try the demo, its free.
Also I managed to download the Vegas 2 gift pack today, Containing Dark versions of CQB training and murdertown, and Calypso casino from the original game. Its free on the 360 marketplace. Its a worthy reason to try the game, as there appear to be new A.C.E.S as you play, Gifted you 5k exp per level.
Now i know that most of you have probably forgotten who i am, seeing as how the last thing i posted was nearly a month ago, but there is a reason for this, i have been partying, i have had school and i had my soul removed by Super Smash Brothers Brawl, so now after finally removing myself from it, also finished partying and school being finished i have decided to write a very hungover review for the reason i havn't been out in the last month.
In my first post i said that i was addicted to Melee (the previous installment), since the age of 13 and with the release of Brawl things have only worsened, this may make me a little bias in this review but i'm the guy who writes on the blog not you so go stick it.
Brawl is quite simply, Melee . . . . . . but it's Melee with more characters (and the unfortunate death of Pikchu, Dr Mario, Mewtwo and Roy, no great loss =P) More items and i hesitate before i say this but better graphics.
I'm not one to really care about Graphics, but i felt in this case something must be said, while there has been some improovment, it is only so much as say Halo 2 to Halo 3, so it's slightly shinier, but they could have done a whole lot more, i know that the Wii is the weakest graphically of the 3 next gen Monsters, but Nintendo have been delaying this game for ages, the least they could do is give us a bit of fucking eye candy.
While i'm on a rant, the gameplay for single player "Subspace emmissary," is repetative (they make you go through all the levels twice) and has essentially no plot line to it, i hate things that have a "loose" plotline, this may have somthing to do with all the characters not being able to muster up any words aside from their catchphrase.
The rest of the game also gets repetative if you play it to much, but seeing as how i normally only play this game when i'm with my friends and we're drinking we are entertained by bits of string, so nintendos poor attempt to put all their franchises main characters into one arcade style game works as an adiquate time waster, for up at my house when we are all hungover in the morning we spend hours playing it.
To be honest if you want my advice you would probably do better to buy a gamecubefor say 5P then buy a copy of melee for about £2 and play that instead, your really not missing out on much because the two games are pretty much the same, the original characters though tweaked are essentially the same, the gameplay is the same.
If Nintendo don't dramatically change the gameplay, they are going to turn into the Dragonball Z Video games, that with each game they know that all their fanboys are going to go out and buy it so they just put in a few more characters and tweak the gameplay a little bit and market it as a completely different game.
Now i've got that out of the way, i would like to talk about a game that when i saw it was annouced nearly caused me to die from shock, Diablo 3, i'm not really sure what to say because there hasn't really been anything annouced, aside from the barbarian is back and there is some new class called the "witch doctor," but i'll tell them one thing if they don't put the necromancer in for this game i'm going to hunt down Blizzards design team and stab them with world of warcraft figurines.
Though from watching the gameplay video (see below) i have realised a few things, one how mind bogglingly simple Diablo gameplay is and always has been, also that blizzard are selling out to no end, correct me if i'm wrong but i seem to remember destroying certain evil demons soulstones in the last game to prevent them from ever stalking the mortal world again feeding on Villagers private parts, so please tell me how it is that they have brought him back, i have heard rumours of a 4th brother the "Lord of Armageddon," but to be honest i think thats all the fanboys looking way to much into things.
Anyway, here are 3 videos of the latest part of Blizzards attempt to keep one of the three franchises they have alive.
also hopefully in the next couple of weeks i will have my new computer and will be able to do a review on age of conan.
Not exactly game related, but it is a videogame movie, and this is the last chance I'll get to mention it before the E3 bomb drops tomorrow.
Now, the max Payne trailer has hit the Internet, and after watching it a few times, I'm pretty psyched about this movie.
Now, I might be unfairly biased towards this film because I loved the two Max Payne games, and hope that if the film is successful, someone will start making Max Payne 3 again, Making me very happy. Secondly, I like films with lots of explosions and shooting. Thirdly, Mark Wahlberg is in it, and in the trailer, he looks the business as max.
My only mild concern is the flying creatures that feature in the trailer, and also that they will overuse the slow motion the game is so well known for.
Oh, and erm, Nelly furtado is in it. I find it hard to take that seriously.
Proving that it isn't all fun and games with jack Thompson's imminent trial, this brings further proof that people are demonising gaming. Enter "Random Chinese student" enrolled at Clements high school in Texas. Random Chinese student, or RCS for short, decides he wants to make a counterstrike map based on his school. Now, I've wanted to do this myself a few times with locations I've been in, but luckily I lack the "skillz" for building a map, and frankly, I lack the interest for such a project. Perhaps this is lucky or I might of been arrested by now, Which is precisely what happened to RCS when his school found out the map existed.
Here's where it gets interesting. RCS has been expelled from his high school, and will not be allowed to graduate with the rest of his classmates even though no charges have been filed against him. there goes "innocent until proven guilty" I guess. Yet another case of gamers being vilified by the common media, although I'm willing to accept some of the blame may fall on the Virginia tech massacre and the culprit.
While searching for screenshots of the map, I found other messages similar to mine on the maps flickr: "I'll just boot this up while listening to Marilyn Manson and watching the Matrix. Then I too can be a bonafide killer. Proper parenting goes a long way. Videogames, music, and TV don't kill people. People kill people."
One user being the voice of reason there.
I see nothing wrong with wanting a map of your school. The kid spends a lot of time with his friends there. Why not incorporate one of his favorite games with a familiar surrounding and share that with his friends?
another user hitting the nail on the head. It appears only the administrators of the school think arresting someone for making a counterstrike map is a good idea, and its yet another example of video games being demonised by a generation that misunderstands them.
Jack Thompson looks set to get what some gamers would, undoubtedly, call justice. As DW covers in his earlier article, Jack Thompson has been tried for 27 counts of professional misconduct. Today the Judge Tunis released her ruling for the 7 counts that Jack Thompson was found guilty of. After the Florida Bar Association suggested a term of 10 years ban for Mr. Thompson's legal practice, Judge Tunis went on to say this was 'too lenient' and further extended this to a lifetime ban, and a 43,000 dollar bill for court costs. Ha fucking ha.
After giving shit for games such as GTA as being too violent, gamers have a right to be annoyed with such a person who is a threat to virtual freedoms. Personally, I wouldn't have minded. He was an activist against something he didn't believe in: I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that he abused his powers and his position to do this. To quote Judge Tunis: 'Further, he has repeatedly indicated, verbally and in writing, that his conduct is justified to promote and champion his personally engendered moral values and causes.' In short, he broke the law in order to create the law. I think the French did something similar in 1789.
However, there is hope. Jack Thompson has a defense which may lead him to be 'emancipated'... Because conveniently, according to him, Judge Tunis' loyalty oath (and therefore her right to be a Judge) is forged. That's his defense. Now... this to me seems equivalent to saying 'Yeah sure, I committed all of those crimes, but SHE...' Surely, if that's his defense, he's admitted his guilt?
This guy's supposed to be 'religious'.
But more importantly, Jack Thompson is, in his opinion, 'right'. That's the only thing that can drive a person to risk everything to change laws. To misrepresent. To mispractice. But the law says he's not 'right', because he's broken the law, and so is punished. Luckily for gamers. Gamers who love GTA, and DON'T drive around in a 60s sedan drive-bying hoodies. This makes the world believe that Jack Thompson's opinions about games are wrong too. This guy is a martyr to our own freedoms. Of course, not everyone is suddenly going to change their mind, but I have to give Jack a pat on the back for making the position of the gamer more credible. And restoring everyone's faith in lawyers...
Though, essentially, he still deserves everything that comes his way, simply, because he's such a hypocrite. If I were him, I wouldn't be so worried about the loss of my entire life, but, instead, the loss of my dignity. Don't, ever, undermine your own argument by undermining the system you're appealing to. How can anyone take him seriously? How can he take himself seriously? That's my opinion anyway.
But what it comes down to is this (as a gamespot user put it):
Personally I'm still playing GTAIV, so here's a STALKER review (Its a long 'un!):
Well, I said I was gonna do another review, so here it is! Again, I am typing this in a single-sitting without any actual drafting, so excuse me if it sucks, or seems all ranty, or you find something else distasteful about it (I suppose that's where I come in - Mel). This review will be on the last game I completed, GSC Game World's "STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl". Yes, I know this game has been out since March of 2007, but the prequel is due to come out within the next couple of months, and I just finished it. So if you're the kind of person who will bitch about me reviewing it for that reason, go drool over 3dRealms' table scraps or something instead of pointing it out like it's some kind of damn crime. It's not illegal in my jurisdiction, anyway.
According to the pseudo-intellectual clusterfuck known as Wikipedia, GSC Game World is based in Kiev, which, like Chernobyl, is in the Ukraine. I suppose their proximity to the site of Captain Planet's worst nightmare makes them a good choice to make a game set in that location. Again, according to Wikipedia (ally to those too lazy to do their own damn research) they have had most of their success with some sort of strategy series that I don't remember the name of, about people on horses stabbing each other in squabbles about arbitrary boundaries... or... human history, I guess would be an easier way to say it. I think this is their first adventure into the wonderful world of shooting people with Kalashnikovs in a first-person view.
In STALKER, you play an unattractive Slavic dude who is suffering from amnesia; an affliction about as common among action/adventure protagonists as the common cold. Rescued from a pile of dead Slavic dudes who were in the back of a crashed Soviet-era (old Soviet crap is very atmospheric, right?) truck that got hit by lightning or something... who drives a huge, rickety truck in a lightning storm... damn, this is kind of a run-on sentence now and... dammit. Ok, so another, less ugly Slavic dude rescues you and brings you to an even more ugly, fat Slavic dude with atrocious table manners, and you wake up, and your fancy PDA thingy displays a message in English telling you to kill some other Slavic dude.
There are lots of Slavic dudes, actually. Most are probably Ukrainian, but I'm not sure, some might be Russian, or Estonian. Who knows? They're here for a reason. See, the story goes that sometime in... 2008, I think the game said, but my mind is wandering... there was a second explosion at the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear powerplant, and afterwards, weird shit started going down that could not be attributed to this. Some of this weird shit resulted in the formation of bizarre 'artefacts' which have strange and wondrous effects on human life, and mutant critters that biologists think could lead to new discoveries... and new discoveries can mean big bucks... er... roubles.
You wake up in a camp of 'STALKERs', people who have come to brave the dangers of 'The Zone' in hope of finding stuff that they can sell, perhaps allowing them to at least buy toilet-paper and thus improve their standard of living. As payment for saving your irradiated ass, the fat dude asks you to do some jobs for him, which gradually leads into the game's main story, which I will summarize... at some point.
I should probably make note of the fact that in the cutscenes, which are not rendered with the in-game engine but are actual video (haven't seen that in a while), the lip-syncing seemed off, but since there isn't much of it to be off in the first place, and this is a Ukrainian-made game, and I was playing it on my new laptop which I haven't played many games on (and thus may be responsible for the issue itself upon further investigation), I was willing to forgive that little problem. The cutscenes themselves are quite nice, in my opinion, they have a very cinematic feel to them.
Anyway, one of the first things you will notice about this game is that speaking to NPCs brings up a dialogue thingy, which kind of reminds me of Fallout, but doesn't take up the whole screen. Some of them have a lot to say... but very few NPCs actually voice it... if that bothers you, take some more Ritalin so you can enjoy it, for the sake of gaming... uh oh, am I gonna rant again!? No... anyway, the dialogue is fairly simplistic, but this is an FPS, so that's fine... it gets the job done, letting you ask for busy-work, find out more about the setting, hear rumours, and so on.
NPCs are fairly well done. Except for the most important ones, they speak in Russian, which is very atmospheric, and explains why audio dialogue with the player is sparse. They go about their business, usually sticking in the same area, but not like damn statues... they will tell jokes around campfires, some have guitars they'll play little songs on... they all have names, and they do in fact remember your actions towards them. If you shoot some guy in the ass for... I dunno, maybe you have an ass-shooting fetish... he won't like you, and neither will the people he hangs out with. If someone else does it, and you patch him up, he'll like you. The only problem is that some dialogue is repeated over and over in a relatively short span of time, like this butt-buccaneer in the bar who keeps saying "My information may be of use to you, Stalker," every 15 seconds, and he even says it in English, so you can't even at least start to learn a new damn language! Asswipe. I'm not much good for Eastern European etiquette, but I feel fairly confident saying that's really fucking annoying in any culture.
There are NPC factions; Loners (this is actually the lack of a faction I guess), Duty, Freedom, Monolith, the military, mercs, and bandits. You start out as a loner, and (to my knowledge, though I never tried) can later join Duty or Freedom, but not both, because they don't play nice. Your interactions with various NPCs will change faction opinions of you, so if Duty really likes you, Freedom will hate your guts, and vice versa. If you're a huge arsehole and kill people for fun and profit, the mercs and bandits, I'm told, will not necessarily gun you down on sight, though Monolith and - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" - the military will still decide you need some added ventilation. All in all, this is a very cool feature which I feel was under-utilized. Apparently GSC agrees, because they say it will play a major part in the upcoming prequel. Sounds like good times.
I seem to have been interrupted during that paragraph by the most annoying NPC ever. Sorry about that.
Now, it's about time I actually talked about the gameplay, particularly the shooting. This is really a shooter, after all, as much as I want to praise the more RPG-esque parts of it. The combat ranges from "Haha, this is awesome!" to "I think I'd rather get kicked in the shins by midgets". It's interesting to note the fact that although some enemies seem to take bullets to the stomach like they were getting hit with clumps of soggy Wonderbread, a single shot to the head (which can feel like it's the size of a mandarin orange if you take into account the inaccuracy of some weapons) will kill all but the toughest enemies... if it's a sniper round, that will kill anything. Then again, I'm playing through the game a second time and not noticing this on a higher difficulty, so I am now attributing it to a poor choice of weapons and a reluctance to use armour-piercing bullets the first time through. The lesson? Experiment with weapons in this game.
The shooting is nothing special, for the most part, but you do get an impressive array of cool guns, which all have different characteristics which may appeal to different people. The MP5, for example, fires faster than the AKM-74, but - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" - is less accurate and does less damage. You can put a silencer on the MP5, but you can't give it a scope and a grenade launcher like the AK. Then again, that scope on the AK may be over-rated, because, as I said, accuracy is an issue; the bullets won't always go exactly where the scope says they will - better switch to semi-auto! Maybe you should hit your 'V' key and use that full-featured grenade launcher? I do like the grenades in this game, something I don't say very often... the launched ones have a small blast radius, but the thrown ones have a realistically large (HUGE compared to the puny grenades in most shooters) range that makes them easy to use unless you decide you want to play catch with flying shrapnel, and neglect to get behind cover. There's a lot of choice in how you kill the bad guys, here, given the setting. No gravity gun or anything, but you'll be surprised how different things will feel going from one assault rifle to another.
You also have a knife, which is VERY powerful if you can get close enough to use it without getting hollow-point brain surgery... much harder than it sounds. For a game called STALKER, it's really hard to sneak in this. Everything you do makes a bit of noise. Draw or reload a gun? Noise. Step through a bush? Noise. The enemies don't see you like some kind of psychic assassins, but with how well they can hear you, I'd expect them to have ears like fucking Dumbo. Did I mention that when they do hear you, they notify the Borg collective... er... each other... of it through telepathy (well, not really, but it sure FEELS that way) and thus ruin your attempts at stealth? Maybe that's a bit of exaggeration, it's ENTIRELY possible to do stealth kills, but for the effort it takes to do so without at least alerting nearby NPCs that something is up, you could be - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER".
...Nevermind. I hate that guy.
Anyway, you could spend a ton of time just fooling around with the various killing implements. The only problem is that they start to wear down with use... after a while, they start to jam (which forces you to reload... even in the middle of combat) and - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" - eventually stop working altogether. This can be a pain in the arse if you've found a really nice weapon and are attached to it... where is this shit made, Hong Kong? I thought most former Soviet countries had a conscription-based military, do NONE of these people know how to fix a fucking gun?
My apologies for the - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" - dammit he interrupted me again... see, annoying! Rude!
That leads us to... inventory, maps, and menus. Interestingly, using any of them does not pause the game, so you have to be careful where you do it. This can be irritating, like when you're getting your bearings while a pack of a half-dozen mutant dogs that even PETA would advocate euthanasia decide they want your kneecaps for dinner, with a side of inner thigh. It doesn't help that you can only carry 50 kilograms of stuff before your stamina (used for jumping and sprinting, as usual) starts taking a SEVERE hit, and 60 kg (unless you have strength-boosting armour) before you find your top speed suddenly decreased to approximately that of a tree stump. This means that you may be inclined to spend a - "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER".
...I really wish that guy would shut up.
As I was saying, you may spend a lot of time fidgeting with your inventory... you also need to use it if you want to change your pistol or SMG/Rifle... you can only equip one of each, plus... ah, those artefacts I mentioned earlier? They aren't just good for selling; if you choose to equip them (up to 5), they will affect you in various ways, increasing your resistance to bullets, or things that want to chew on your face, or maybe increasing your stamina. They usually have a negative effect too, though. For example, producing radiation, or making you more vulnerable to fire. It's also fun to experiment with these.
You'll also spend a lot of time using your maps (and using that sprint that begs you to keep your carry weight low), because this is a astoundingly large and open game world by shooter standards; perhaps the biggest I have ever seen in a shooter. It's very well done, with burnt-out villages, swamps, laboratories, factories, forests... you gain access to more of it as you play the main story, but you get so much at a time you won't mind. Really, it's astounding they put this much detail into it, and it never really gets old. It's exactly how you'd imagine the area around Chernobyl looking. You even get to go through the Red Forest and Pripyat (look them up, I'm lazy). Apparently the devs looked at photos and news footage of the area, but it feels more like they arranged to spend some time in the real world location (hey, they let people in there, you just have to make arrangements I guess). Not too far from Kiev, so they very well may have.
Anyway, you've got all of this area to explore, and dead bodies will sometimes alert you to the location of hid- "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" -den loot scattered... just ignore him, Lord knows I try... erm, scattered across them. The stashes are a bit buggy, though... if you get a note on the same one twice, it will erase the loot and leave the marker on your map. Kinda frustrating. But the stashes aren't the only reason to explore, there are other goodies you can find, and many side quests, which would be a pain in the ass if this weren't such a kick-arse environment to do them in. To make things even more interesting, there are 'anomalies', which will blast, throw, crush, burn, melt, shock, and irradiate you... they're all over the place, and often surround really good stuff or important areas... navigating them is quite nerve-racking at times (but in a good way). They're a new and interesting challenge.
Actually, it's quite overwhelming, especially with the mutants and bandits (who, judging from the rate at which they are able to repopulate their camps, apparently reproduce asexually and take 5 minutes to reach maturity and sprout an AK-74 from God knows where), and that's perhaps my biggest gripe ab- "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU STALKER" - Ok, I take it back... second biggest gripe about the game... sometimes it will feel like you're running a marathon to get back to the nearest trader, especially if you're carrying too much and keep running out of breath. A quick-travel would be welcome, and thankfully, GSC says the upcoming prequel will have one.
Maybe I should have done this earlier, but now I'll talk about the story. Remember, you're an amnesiac Russian guy? "MY INFORMATION MAY BE OF USE TO YOU, STALKER!"
SHUT YOUR BORSCHT-HOLE, YOU NEVER HAVE ANYTHING I HAVEN'T ALREADY LEARNED IN THE MAIN STORYLINE!
Ahem... you obviously need to find out who you are, so you need to head deeper into the zone chasing clues, though you can skip a lot of these clues (which I think is worthy of praise, options are good!). This will take you through creepy labs, decrepit forts full of underpaid Ukrainian Spetsnaz troops, mutant-infested swamps, brainwashed and heavily-armed cultists... you'll have to weave your way through the irradiated area around the Chernobyl plant itself as snipers and gunships hunt you down, while the plant threatens to blow a third time. There are parts that are creepy, confusing (usually in a good way... you know, teleporters and such), parts that will have you on the edge of your seat... it's really got everything you could hope for in a good shooter... and then, you will get one of seven different endings (though 5 of them are more or less the same, and result from the same choice at the endgame... you'll see).
So, in conclusion, you can probably tell I really enjoyed this game. I understand that the initial release was horrendously buggy, but I'm reviewing the version which we have NOW. I admit it has some significant faults, but in my view, the pros far outweigh the cons (many of which I can let slide, considering this is a Ukrainian game, and a new genre for its developers), and if you like open-ended, RPG-esque shooters, you owe it to yourself to play it. I don't know about you, but when STALKER: Clear Sky is released, I'll be all over it like no shooter I've anticipated in years. In the meantime, I'll be looking for a way to port that 'information' guy to Garry's Mod, and a mod to let me dismember and impale him. I guess that will have to do for now.
So, I have no clue what to review next. If someone will make a suggestion (no, my computer can't run Crysis at more than 2 frames per second), I promise to be less verbose next time! Honest!
What they're proposing now is the removal of the PEGI system for games given over a 12 rating. Instead, the games will just be given a BBFC rating, if they're over a 12. I don't understand the point in this. From a parent's point of view, the PEGI rating is generall harsher than the BBFC rating: for instance, last year, 30 games were downgraded from 18 under PEGI rules to 15 under BBFC rules. That's not helping the situation of defending the young, if anything, it'll just aggravate the situation.
But what's far worse, is that this will pile BBFC's workload far higher than it is now. They already have to deal with all the films coming into the UK, and now all of the games too? That can only mean one thing for us UK gamers. More waiting than at the Savoy Grill. I dunno what idiot (actually I do, Dr. Tanya Byron) came up with this plan. But I don't like it. It's not good from anyone's point of view. Not the parents that want to protect their children, nor the gamers that just want to play games.
Needless to say, this has been met by huge disapproval by the industry, Sony, Nintendo, Ubi Soft have all made their voices heard over this. And rightly so, it's dangerous to their business too. Why plug more bureaucracy into a system which is already dying from that? Children can only be shielded from adult games by teaching the parents who allow 10 year olds to play GTA and the such. Sigh.
Mel's note: After the epic review which was ComradeJim270's Oblivion, I decided to opt for a less deep (but no less informative) entry by Hey Joe for those newly-found fans of 3scapism which are not quite used to our longer material yet. Enjoy.
It feels weird to pick up The Sims 2 again after all this time. After spending time playing manly games like Halo 3, Gears of War and Barbie's Pony Adventure. I say manly, because the neurotic nerd in me feels as if playing The Sims 2 is like a glorified session of playing dollhouse with distinct Cartesian undertones.
Yet, like a man in some sort of weird virtual sado-masochistic relationship, I return to my master and surrender my will, my time and ultimately my sanity.
As I fire up the game, I'm greeted with some sort of weird blue, cubed loading screen and music that will make your ears bleed, but something about it draws me ever closer like the Sirens near the rocks of my self-respect. I cycle through the neighbourhoods that I have made, and am surprised to see a few games still going. Man, those little Sims must be really pissed off at me after all this time.
I point my cursor over a particular Sim I was quite fond of, Mr Queegle Zomarian, and yes, his place was quite space-aged. I couldn't really remember in what state I left my Sim, so I decided to check it out. As it happens, he was eating spaghetti. I should have had dinner an hour ago, but I'm way too drawn in now. I hit the play button. One eating animation and I was in love again.
He was a slob, and he was eating like one. Bits of virtual food flew through the air in a ballet of sloppiness. Heck, he reminds myself of me, I like this little guy. Once he was done licking his plate (who among us has never done this?), he just stood there. Oh God. He was waiting for me to tell him what to do. This is dangerous territory for me, as all my obsessive-compulsive tendencies take over, and pretty soon it'll be 4AM and I'll still be gunning for Queegle's promotion.
Tentatively, I look down at his vitals. It would seem that he was quite bored with life. So, I decide like the benevolent player that I am that it would be a good idea for him to play on his brand-spanking new computer. As he does, I can't help but to notice the irony inherent in this situation, and wonder if Queegle is playing some sort of people simulator too.
I'm shocked out of my musings when I notice that his bladder 'need' is dangerously low. How did I let it come to that!? I used to be good at this game, I feel shame and regret. I whisper "Sorry Queegle," to my computer screen and send him on his way to bladder relief. I start to reflect on my own bladder when I notice he's done. All of his vitals are green, and there's nothing he needs to do, so he just stands around.
Oh crap. He can't just sit there and do nothing. He's got a career to worry about! Once he gets up in the world he's got to meet a nice girl or possibly be abducted by aliens, he's got to start a family. He's a family oriented sim after all. I glance over to his skills page, and notice that he could stand to get a few more cooking skill points, so I plonk his virtual arse in front of the television and make him watch a virtual Martha Stewart make a deal with a virtual Beelzebub.
Once he gets a point of cooking I look at his career page. He needs three more friends to get a promotion. He needs three more friends!? What kind of sick world is this where how many friends you have determines how successful you are in life? Upon reflection, I bet Alan Greenspan didn't have too many friends either...
He needs to get on that telephone pronto! He's got to chat like he's never chatted before! I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown thinking about the possibility of him being passed over again because some whore of a Sim slept her way up the ladder. He chats with one person for a while and gets his friendship bar just over 50, first goal accomplished. But now his social bar is full, and he doesn't feel like chatting for more than 4 virtual minutes.
"You stupid, stupid Queegle!" I yell furiously at the screen. "You're useless without me... useless!". After this, my mind goes into a dark place where all Sims players go sometimes. The place of the dark room.
I want to lure him on a vacant place on the lot and wall him in. No windows, no light, no doors, only the suffering of a Sim who could not follow orders. So in my malevolent rage, I tell him to go sit on the grass. Then, I wall him in.
"Take that!" I scream. "You don't follow orders, you get 10 hours in the box!" The first hour he's okay, I don't think Queegle knows he's trapped. Then, it begins. He starts to panic when he can't control his bladder, his vitals go down to red, he looks about frantically, wondering if he's doomed to this box for the rest of time. Then, something happens that reminds me why I love this game so much.
I swear to Will Wright, the Sim looks straight at me. I pause the game. I study the face for a while, I zoom in on it. It's pleading with me to stop toying with its existence, it's burning right into my soul. I can't possibly continue this, it's to scarring. I let him out, and I get his vitals back and hope to Will Wright that Queegle will ever be able to forgive me. Then, the true genius of this game hits me.
It's not about what happens in the game world, but rather what happens in front of screen, in the player's mind. The Sims 2 provides not just a peepshow of virtual beings, but into the very fabric of our morality.
Once you place the omnipotent power of complete control into a player's hands, there is no going back. You will be sent on a journey of self-discovery through your actions toward these virtual beings, and that, is where the final irony lies.
I thought I was controlling my Sims, but they were controlling me. Any game that makes you question the very essence of your soul is one worth a mere portion of your cash.
Technically, I've played enough hours of battlefield Bad Company to write a full review, but I haven't played enough single player yet for me to consider it review worthy, so I'm going to give you my first impressions.
I'll start with the game engine. The ability to blow a hole in just about any object in the game world is more then just a fad like in the PS2's "Red Faction" titles, it honestly changes the way you think. In single player this is a useful mechanic letting you take out entrenched enemies by blowing their cover away, But in multi player this really shines. After a ten minute skirmish over a defence point, Houses are burning, tank wrecks are burning, smoke columns stretching up to the sky. Its a brilliant game engine, and I'm hoping it becomes a regular addition in First person shooting games.
The single player, which is an aspect I thought would be weak at best, is heaps of fun. You run around with 3 AI teammates, while they wisecrack and help you the best they can. This is a major difference to other squad shooters where you have to babysit your soldiers and order them around, In this they do they own thing while supporting you and thankfully, the AI is sharp enough for it not to be a problem. The fights are pretty entertaining, and it never feels too unfair even when half of Russia is attacking you.
The multi player is where I've been spending all my time, And in addition to it having the magic "battlefield" gameplay that everyone was interested in, Frostbite adds a whole new layer to it. Smoke from exploded tanks can obscure a snipers vision, and the squad system is a brilliant idea, letting small groups of people work together to complete their goals. This brings me to the first of Battlefields major flaws however. No team voice chat. Your put in a squad, and you can only talk to the 3-4 members of that squad. It makes you feel almost isolated from the team, and makes it impossible for the attackers to organise a real offensive. Secondly, The helicopters are ridiculously overpowered, Too fast for an RPG to hit, and to high up for a tank turret to aim at, and the third flaw is the hundreds of snipers populating every game. But that isn't really anything i can pin on DICE or EA.
Expect a review soon, In the meantime, go and buy the game, The multiplayer is a nice change from COD4.
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Arabic
Japanese
Korean
Chinese
Russian
